CAT/C/46/D/319/2007 arbitrary detentions in the period June-August 2005, including a leader of Akali Dal. He submits that his political activities would make him particularly vulnerable to detention and torture if he were to be returned. 6.1 By Note Verbale of 17 July 2009, the State party submits that the Fact-Finding Report Regarding Nirmal Singh, presented by the complainant, contains no new evidence demonstrating that there were substantial grounds to believe that the latter would personally be at risk of torture if returned to India. 6.2 Should it be determined that the report contains new evidence, the State party submits that the complainant should present it first to Canadian immigration authorities, that the complainant has not exhausted domestic remedies as required by article 22 (5)(b) of the Convention and therefore it is inadmissible. The State party notes that it remains open to the complainant to request a new PRRA or file a new H&C application for permanent residence based on the new report. 6.3 In conclusion, the State party continues to rely on their original submission of 17 January 2007 and asks the Committee to find the communication inadmissible and lacking in merits. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 7.1 Before considering any claims contained in a communication, the Committee against Torture must decide whether or not it is admissible under article 22 of the Convention. The Committee has ascertained, as it is required to do under article 22, paragraph 5 (a), that the same matter has not been, and is not being, examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement and that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. 7.2 The Committee notes the State party's contention that the complaint of a violation of article 3 of the Convention, based on the return of the complainant to India is manifestly unfounded and therefore inadmissible. The Committee, however, considers that the complainant has provided sufficient substantiation to permit it to consider the case on the merits. 7.3 The Committee notes the State party’s submission that the allegation of lack of effective remedy should be found inadmissible since it constitutes an allegation for violation of article 2 (3) of ICCPR and therefore it is not within the Committee’s jurisdiction under article 22, paragraph 1 of the Convention. The Committee, however, recalls its jurisprudence that the prohibition on refoulement should be interpreted to encompass a remedy for its breach.5 5 See Ahmed Hussein Mustafa, complaint No. 233/2003, Views of 20 of May 2005, para. 13.6 and 13.7. 9